That's what didn't make much sense in BG, with the whole Dynaheir rescue. Otherwise, it'd be "Oh no, in TWO WEEKS, something bad's going to happen!" So, if you DON'T explore the ruins, there's no urgency at all, and if you DO, there's a decent bit." But then, you'd have to re-structure everything so that you didn't actually KNOW the time limit for a given quest/situation until you'd already done some exploring and side stuff. But, then, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the urgency they're creating? "Well, I guess we'll sacrifice some urgency so that you can explore those ruins. Granted, you could always just make sure the time limits are lenient enough so that you can do a bunch of extra stuff.
But, again, they aren't RPGs, with branches and branches and branches of time-consuming options at every turn.Įspecially if the main story's time-sensitive, and it's always effectively ticking away, you're going to inevitably run into a point at which you must choose between doing cool, exploration-based optional things (that were put in the game because they're meant to be done), OR not-lose the game (a la Fallout's water chip timer). There are plenty of games set up like that. If it weren't a game (or it weren't an RPG), then you could easily have a continuous flow of time with no problems the whole game could be time-based challenges/missions. I know that still doesn't make 100% perfectly realistic unabstracted sense, but it works 1,000 times better for the game. Time limits are fine, as long as the game provides periods of time limitlessness as well.
0 kommentar(er)
